Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ and Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ.
Dr. Ramneek Singh Bedi and another - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 14177 of 2011.
Decided On : 5 August, 2011
Clinical Establishments - Registration and Regulation Act, 2010 - The court upheld the requirement for medical practitioners to provide facilities for stabilizing emergency medical conditions in their clinics, rejecting the argument that it interfered with their right to practice. The court emphasized that the interpretation of the statutory provision depends on the situation and does not create an impossible situation affecting the right of the petitioners to practice the medical profession.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, medical practitioners with clinics, sought a declaration that the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 is ultra vires the Constitution due to the requirement of seeking registration and providing facilities for stabilizing emergency medical conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, rejecting the argument that the requirement of providing facilities for stabilizing emergency medical conditions interfered with the petitioners' right to practice. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Act do not create an impossible situation affecting the right of the petitioners to practice the medical profession.
Issues: The main issue was whether the requirement of providing facilities for stabilizing emergency medical conditions in clinics under the Clinical Establishments Act interfered with the right of medical practitioners to carry on their profession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the interpretation of the statutory provision depends on the situation and emphasized that the Act does not create an impossible situation affecting the right of the petitioners to practice the medical profession.
Final Decision: The writ petition seeking declaration that the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 is ultra vires the Constitution was dismissed.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, ACJ. - This petition seeks declaration that the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 is ultra vires the Constitution.
2. Case of the petitioners is that they are medical practitioners having their clinics. The Act lays down the requirement of seeking registration, providing for penal consequences in absence of registration. Registration can be granted only on fulfillment of conditions lays down under the Act. Section 12 (2) of the Act requiring facilities to stablise the emergency medical condition of any individual who is brought to clinical establishment.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners requirement of providing for facilities for stablisation of emergency medical condition of an individual is arbitrary and interference with the right of the petitioners to carry on their profession. The petitioners are only running their clinics and they may not be able to provide for facilities for stablising the emergency medical condition of individuals who are brought to such clinics. Those who cannot provide such facilities cannot be debarred from carrying on their medical profession.
We are unable to accept the submission.
4. Clinical establishment as defined under Section 2(c) covers various types of clinical establishment. Facilities for stablising, expected to be provided in each such establishment, will obviously mean facilities expected from the type of clinical establishment run, by an institution or an individual. An individual medical practitioner may not be expected to do something impossible by providing facilities at par with a big hospital. Interpretation of a statutory provision depends upon situation which may arise. The provisions of the Act do not create any impossible situation so as to affect the right of the petitioners to practice the medical profession. There is, thus, no ground to interfere at this stage. The individual fact situation can be considered as and when the same arises.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
